Importance of accident analysis methods for improvement of OSH management

• Autorzy: Tabor Joanna

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/czoto-2022-0028

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of the work is to review the basic methods of accident analysis in terms of the possibility of using them to improve occupational safety management. Analyzing accident events is a very good way to obtain information on the practical functioning of OSH management. Although the analysis of accidents and near misses is included in the reactive activities, the changes that will be introduced as a result of this analysis are the most proactive. These irregularities can be related to all elements and aspects of the functioning of the organization from the technical, organizational, human, environmental and management side, and the accident analysis helps to identify them. The paper reviews and characterizes the basic methods of accident analysis, with particular emphasis on accidents at work. Moreover, the basic classification criteria and the main guidelines for the selection of these methods are presented in such a way that they can be effectively used to improve the OSH management system.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

management; improvement; accident analysis; OHS

PL

zarządzanie; zarządzanie bezpieczeństwem pracy; analiza wypadków; bezpieczeństwo i higiena pracy

• Wydawca: De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: System Safety : Human - Technical Facility - Environment
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 4, nr 1
• Strony: 269--281
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 53 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Tabor Joanna

• Czestochowa University of Technology, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7746-2979

Bibliografia

• 1. Benner, L., 1975. Accident investigation: Multilinear events sequencing method, Journal of Safety Research 7, 67-73.
• 2. Benner, L. Jr., 1985. Rating accident models and investigation methodologies, Journal of Safety Research, 16, 105-126.
• 3. Bento, J.P., 1999. MTO-analys av händelsesrapporter, OD-00-2, Oljedirektoratet, Stavanger.
• 4. BSI, 2007. OHSAS18001: 2007 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Requirements, Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series. British Standards Institution, London.
• 5. Cadieux, J., Desmarais, L., 2006. A preliminary validation of a new measure of occupational health and safety, Journal of Safety Research, 37(4), doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2006.04.008.
• 6. CEN, 2009, EN-ISO 9004: 2009 Managing for the sustained success of an organization – A quality management approach, CEN.
• 7. Denton, D., 1982. Safety management: Improving Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
• 8. DOE, 1999. Conducting Accident Investigations, DOE Workbook, Revision 2, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.
• 9. DOE-HDBK-1208-2012, Accident and Operational Safety Analysis, Volume I: Accident Analysis Techniques, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.
• 10. Eurofund, 2015. Third European Company Survey – Overview Report: Workplace Practices – Patterns, Performance and Well-Being, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
• 11. Ferry, T.S. (Ed.), 1988. Modern Accident Investigation and Analysis, John Wiley & Sons.
• 12. Haddon, W., 1968. The changing approach to epidemiology, prevention and amelioration of trauma, American Journal of Public Health 58 (8), 1431-1438, doi: 10.2105, ajph.58.8.1431.
• 13. Hasle, P., Zwetsloot, G., 2011. Editorial: occupational health and safety management systems: issues and challenges, Safety Science, 49, 961-963, doi: 10.1016/ j.ssci.2011.02.013.
• 14. Heinrich, H., W., 1959. Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach (4th Edition), McGraw-Hill Book Company.
• 15. Hendrick, K., Benner, Jr. L., 1987. Investigating Accidents with STEP, Marcel Dekker, New York.
• 16. Hollnagel, E., 1998. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
• 17. Hollnagel, E., 2004. Barriers and accident prevention, Ashgate.
• 18. Hollnagel, E., 2008. Investigation as an impediment to learning, [In:] Hollnagel, E., Nemeth, C., Dekker, S. (Eds.) Remaining sensitive to the possibility of failure (Resilience engineering series). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
• 19. Hollnagel, E., Speciali, J., 2008. Study on Development in Accident Investigation Methods: A survey of “State-of-the-Art”, SKI Report 2008:50, Ecole des Mines de Paris, France.
• 20. Høyland, A., M. Rausand, M., 1994. System reliability Theory: Models and Statistical Methods, Wiley, New York.
• 21. ILO, 2001. Guidelines on Occupational Safety Health Management Systems, (ILOOSH), Geneva, Switzerland
• 22. ILO, 2013. Audit Matrix for the ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems (ILO-OSH 2021), ILO, Switzerland, 115-116.
• 23. IOSH, 2011. Systems in Focus – Guidance on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems. Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, The Grange, UK.
• 24. Isaac, A., Shorrock, S., Kirwan, B., 2002. Human error in European air traffic management: The HERA project, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 75(2), 257-272, doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00099-0.
• 25. Jacinto, C., Aspinwall, E., 2003. Work accidents investigation technique (WAIT) – part I, Safety Science Monitor, 1 (IV-2).
• 26. Johnson, W.G. (Ed.), 1980. MORT Safety Assurance Systems, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York.
• 27. Kjellén U., Prevention of Accidents Thorough Experience Feedback, Taylor & Francis, London, UK, 2000.
• 28. Kjellén, U., Larsson, T.J., 1981. Investigation accidents and reducing risks – a dynamic approach, Journal of Occupational Accidents, 3, 129-140, doi: 10.1016/0376-6349(81)90005-5.
• 29. Kjellén, U., Hovden, J., 1993. Reducing risks by deviation control – a retrospective into research strategy, Safety Science, 16, 417-438, doi: 10.1016/0925- 7535(93)90062-1.
• 30. Klimecka – Tatar, D., Niciejewska, M., 2016. The OHS management system in the small-sized production company, Production Engineering Archives, 13(4), 49-52, doi: 10.30657/pea.2016.13.11.
• 31. Laflamme, L., Menckel, E., 1995. Aging and occupational accidents, a review of the literature of the last three decades, Safety Science, 21(2), 145–161, doi: 10.1016/0925-7535(95)00059-3.
• 32. Larsson, T.J., 1993. Investigating accidents and reducing risks – a dynamic approach - its relevance for injury prevention, Safety Science, 16, 439-443, doi: 10.1016/0925-7535(93)90063-J.
• 33. Law, W.K., Chan A.H.S., Pun K.F., 2006. Prioritizing the safety management elements, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 106(6), 778-792, doi: 10.1108/ 02635570610671470.
• 34. Leplat, J., 1978. Accident analysis and work analysis, Journal of Occupational Accidents 1, 331–340, doi: 10.1016/0376-6349(78)90003-2.
• 35. Leveson, N. G., 2004. A New Accident Model for Engineering Safer Systems, Science, 42(4), 237-270, 10.1016/S0925-7535(03)00047-X.
• 36. Lindberg, A.-K., Hansson, S.O., Rollenhagen, C., 2010. Learning from accidents - what more do we need to know? Safety Science, 48(6), 714-721, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci. 2010.02.004
• 37. Nouvel, D.; Travadel, S., Hollnagel, E., 2007. Introduction of the concept of functional resonance in the analysis of a near-accident in aviation. Ispra, November 2007, 33rd ESReDA Seminar: Future challenges of accident investigation.
• 38. Pate-Cornell, M. E., Murphy, D. M., 1996. Human and management factors in probabilistic risk analysis: The SAM approach and observations from recent applications, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 53, 115–126, doi: 10.1016/095-8320(96)00040-3.
• 39. Rasmussen, J., 1997. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem, Safety Science, 27 (2–3), 183–213, doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-).
• 40. Rasmussen, J., Svedung, I., 2000, Proactive Risk Management in a Dynamic Society, Swedish Rescue Services Agency.
• 41. Reason, J. (Ed.), 1990. Human Error. University Press, Cambridge.
• 42. Rollenhagen, C., 1995. MTO - En Introduktion, Sambandet Människa, Teknik och Organisation, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
• 43. Sawaragi, T.; Horiguchi, Y., Hina, A., 2006. Safety analysis of systemic accidents triggered by performance deviation, Bexco, Busan, South Korea, October 18-21. SICE-ICASE International Joint Conference.
• 44. Sklet, S., 2006. Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industry, 19(5), 496-506, doi: 10.1016/ j.jlp.2005.12.004.
• 45. Svenson, O., 2000. Accident Analysis and Barrier Function (AEB) Method - Manual for Incident Analysis, Stockholm University, SKI Project Number 97176 (Full report available at http://www.irisk.se/ref.htm).
• 46. Svenson, O., 2001. Accident and Incident Analysis Based on the Accident Evolution and Barrier Function ( AEB) Model, Cognition, Technology & Work, 3(1), 42-52, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00635.x.
• 47. Tabor, J., 2019. Fuzzy TOPSIS in the Assessment of OHS Management System, System Safety: Human - Technical Facility - Environment, 1(1), 18-25, doi: 10.2478/czoto-2019-0003.
• 48. Villemeur, A., 1991. Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety Assessment - Methods and Techniques, vol. 1, Chichester, UK.
• 49. Wagenaar, W.A., Groeneweg, J., Hudson, P.W., Reason, J.T., 1994. Promoting safety in the oil industry, Ergonomics, 37, 1999–2013, doi: 10.1080/00140139408964963.
• 50. Wells, G. L., Phang, C., Wardman, M., Whettan, C., 1992. Incident scenarios: Their identification and evaluation, Process Safety Environment.
• 51. Wilson, P. et al., 1993. Root cause analysis – A tool for total quality management. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
• 52. Worledge, D. 1992. Role of human performance in emergency systems management, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 17, 285-300, doi: 10.1146/ annurev.eg.17.110192.001441.
• 53. Zanko, M., Dawson, P., 2012. Occupational health and safety management in organizations: a review, International Journal of Management Review, 14, 328- 344, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00319.x.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).